User:Rlough

Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. was a 2007 case in which the US District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that copyright holders must consider fair use before issuing takedown notices for content posted on the internet. Stephanie Lenz posted on YouTube a home video of her children dancing to Prince's song Let's Go Crazy. Universal Music Corporation (Universal) sent YouTube a takedown notice pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) claiming that Lenz's video violated their copyright in the "Let's Go Crazy" song. Lenz claimed fair use of the copyrighted material and sued Universal for misrepresentation of a DMCA claim. The court held that, in violation of the DMCA, Universal had not in good faith considered fair use when filing a takedown notice.

This was the first case to establish that copyright holders must consider fair use before filing DMCA takedown notices.

Facts
In February 2007 Stephanie Lenz posted on YouTube a twenty-nine second clip of her children dancing to Prince's "Let's Go Crazy." The audio was of poor quality, and the song audible for approximately twenty seconds. In June 2007, Universal, the copyright holder for "Let's Go Crazy", sent YouTube a takedown notice in compliance with DMCA requirements, claiming the video was a copyright violation. YouTube removed the video and notified Lenz of the removal and the alleged infringement. In late June 2007, Lenz sent YouTube a counter-notification, claiming fair use and requesting the video be reposted. Six weeks later, YouTube reposted the video. In July 2007, Lenz sued Universal for misrepresentation under the DMCA and sought a declaration from the court that her use of the copyrighted song was non-infringing. According to the DMCA 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(v), the copyright holder must consider whether use of the material was allowed by the copyright owner or the law

In September 2007, Prince released statements that he intended to "reclaim his art on the internet." In October 2007, Universal released a statement amounting to the fact that Prince and Universal intended to remove all user-generated content involving Prince from the internet as a matter of principal.

Decision
Based on Prince's and Universal's statements, Lenz argued that Universal was issuing takedown notices in bad faith, as they attempted to remove all Prince-related content rather than considering the merits of each work. Universal expressed concerns over the fact-intensive investigation and subjective results of determining whether a potentially infringing use is fair.

The court held that copyright owners must consider fair use before issuing DMCA takedown notices. Thus, the court denied Universal's motion to dismiss Lenz's claims, finding Lenz's allegation that Universal indiscriminately removed Prince-related content plausible at an early stage in the case. Universal's concerns over the burden of considering fair use were deemed overstated, as mere good faith consideration of fair use, not necessarily an in-depth investigation, is sufficient defense against misrepresentation. The court also explained that liability for misrepresentation is crucial in preventing abuse of the DMCA as a means to stifle controversial speech.